Conservator of Forest & another vs Ramesh Chandra Trivedi

Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

There is delay of 174 days in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent does not seriously oppose the delay condonation application.

Cause shown for the delay is sufficient. Accordingly, delay condonation application (CLMA No. 15319 of 2017) is allowed and the delay in filing the

appeal is hereby condoned.

This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 02.05.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1145 of 2010,

whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed in terms of judgment dated 23.12.2010 rendered in WPSS No. 182 of 2009 and a

direction was issued to appoint petitioner on the post of Forest Guard on the basis of merit list.

Key facts, necessary for adjudication of this appeal, are that respondent was engaged as a Daily Wager in Champawat Forest Division in the year

1996 and thereafter he was serving continuously in the said capacity. In the month of August, 2008, Forest Department initiated a selection process

for regular appointment on the post of Forest Guard, which was open only to the casual employees of Forest Department. Respondent participated in

the selection and based on his performance in the written examination, he was placed at serial No. 25 in the merit list. However, he was denied

appointment, therefore, respondent filed writ petition seeking a direction to the authorities to appoint him on the basis of merit list.

A counter affidavit was filed by Divisional Forest Officer, Champawat Forest Division stating therein that respondent was paid wages through

muster roll. Minutes of the meeting of the selection committee was brought on record as CA-1 in which the reason assigned for rejecting candidature

of the respondent is that the Chief Conservator of Forest, Human Resource Development & Personnel Management, Uttarakhand had issued one

letter dated 20. 11.2008 stating that only such casual employees shall be eligible to participate in the selection who are getting salary through vouchers

and further that respondent was paid salary through muster roll, therefore, he is not eligible. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide

judgment dated 02.05.2017 by relying upon another judgment rendered in WPSS No. 182 of 2009.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is not disputed that respondent is serving continuously as a daily wager, ever since 1996. The sole ground taken for rejecting his candidature is

that he is paid wages through muster roll and not through vouchers. Mode of payment of wages / salary cannot alter the status of a casual employee.

Respondent was permitted to participate in the selection and his claim for regular appointment was rejected on the basis of a letter issued by Chief

Conservator of Forest.

Since respondent had continuously served for more than a decade at the time of selection, therefore, denial of regular appointment to him only on

the ground that he was paid wages through muster roll, does not appear to be justified. It is not the case of the appellants that respondent is not

educationally qualified for the post. Appellant do not dispute that respondent has been serving in the Department since 1996. After rendering long

services in the Department, as a casual employee, respondent had a legitimate expectation that his claim for regular appointment would be considered.

He was also permitted to participate in the selection for regular appointment and his name figured amongst list of successful candidates. In such view

of the matter, his right for regular appointment was crystallized.

Supplementary affidavit was filed by the respondent in the writ petition stating that two persons namely, Sunder Singh Samant and Ganesh Chandra

Joshi were denied regular appointment, but they were subsequently given appointment pursuant to the judicial orders. This statement was not rebutted

by the appellants. Casual employees of Forest Department had been agitating for regularization of their services since long. Hon’ble Allahabad

High Court decided the matter in favour of the casual employees. The State Government filed SLP before Hon’ble Supreme Court which was

decided vide judgment dated 21.02.2002. The said judgment is reported in 2006(9) SCC 337 (State of U.P. Vs Putti Lal). Para 6 of the said judgment

is extracted below:-

“6. So far as the State of Uttaranchal is concerned, a scheme for regularisation of daily workers has been produced before us which prima facie

does not appear to be objectionable excepting the provision regarding qualification for regularisation. Be it stated that the qualification essential for

being regularised would be the qualification as was relevant on the date a particular employee was taken in as a daily-wager and not the qualification

which is being fixed under the scheme. The fact that the employees have been allowed to continue for so many years indicates the existence or the

necessity for having such posts. But still, it would not be open for the Court to indicate as to how many posts would be created for the absorption of

these daily-wages workers. Needless to mention that the appropriate authority will consider the case of these daily-wagers sympathetically who have

discharged the duties for all these years to the satisfaction of their authority concerned. So far as the salary is concerned, as we have stated in the

case of State of Uttar Pradesh, a daily-wager in the State of Uttaranchal would be also entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale as is available to his

counter-part in the Government until his services are regularised and he is given regular scale of pay.â€​

From the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) had submitted a scheme for regularization for daily wage

workers of Forest Department, which was approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus it was not open to the authorities to deny

regularization/regular appointment to the respondent on the ground that he was paid wages through muster roll.

We are informed that the judgment rendered in the case of Sundar Singh Samant (petitioner in WPSS No.182/2009) has attained finality and Sri

Sundar Singh Samant has been given regular appointment.

In such view of the matter, we find no illegality or perversity in the view taken by learned Single Judge. There is no scope for interference with the

impugned judgment. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Appellant shall consider case of the respondent for regular

appointment, subject to availability of post.

Consequently, pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.